Positive predictive value of CT coronary angiography vs. CT fractional flow reserve in a real-world population. (14th October 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Sinclair, H; Yongli, R L; Beattie, A; Farag, M; Egred, M
• Is Part Of: European heart journal. Volume 42(2021)Supplement 1
• Publication Date: 2021-10-14
• Subjects: Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography (Coronary CTA, CCTA); Cardiology -- Periodicals; Heart -- Diseases -- Periodicals; 616.12005
• DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehab724.0195
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0195-668X

Abstract

Abstract: Background: Computerised tomography coronary angiography and fractional flow reserve (CTCA and CT-FFR) are non-invasive diagnostic tools for the detection of flow limiting coronary artery stenoses. Although their negative predictive values are well established, there is a concern that the high sensitivity of these tests may lead to overestimation of coronary artery disease (CAD) and unnecessary invasive coronary angiography (ICA). We compared the positive predictive value (PPV) of CT-FFR with computerised tomography coronary angiography (CTCA) against the gold standard of ICA in different real-world patient groups. Methods: We conducted a retrospective study of 477 patients referred for CTCA or CT-FFR for investigation of possible coronary ischaemia. Patients were excluded if the image quality was poor or inconclusive. Patient-based PPV was calculated to detect or rule out significant CAD, defined as more than 70% stenosis on ICA. A sub-analysis of PPV by indication for scan was also performed. Patients that underwent invasive non-hyperaemic pressure wire measurements had their iFR or RFR compared with their CT-FFR values. Results: In a patient-based analysis, the overall PPV was 59.3% for CTCA and 76.2% for CT-FFR. This increased to 81.0% and 86.7% respectively for patients with stable angina symptoms. In patients with atypical angina symptoms, CT-FFR considerably outperformed CTCA with a PPV of 61.3% vs. 37.5%. There was not a linear relationship between invasive pressure wire measurement and CT-FFR value (r=0.23, p=0.265). Conclusion: The PPV of CTCA and CT-FFR is lower in the real-world than in previously published trials, partly due to the heterogeneity of indication for the scan. However, in patients with typical angina symptoms, both are reliable diagnostic tools to determine the presence of clinically significant coronary stenoses. CT-FFR significantly outperforms CTCA in patients with more atypical symptoms and the targeted use of CT-FFR in this group may help to avoid unnecessary invasive procedures. Funding Acknowledgement: Type of funding sources: None.